It should be no surprise that only 24 companies in the EU have signed the ‘women on the board pledge for Europe’ in the year since the European Commission drafted the pledge, with the aim of encouraging companies to increase the percentage of women on their boards to 40% by 2020. There was a similar lack of response when the Norwegian parliament in 2003 voted for a mandatory quota – of 40% – if publicly listed companies did not agree to voluntary compliance within two years.

Even when threatened with regulation, few took action. But while most of the corporate sector opposed a statutory framework strongly, some companies voluntarily implemented gender quotas. Among them were some of the largest Norwegian enterprises: Tine, Nortura and Felleskjøpet. These companies were all members of the Federation of Norwegian Agricultural Co-operatives (FNAC). Why did some companies have to be forced by law, while others voluntarily complied?

The most common explanations suggest that voluntary take-up was either a strategic move to avoid mandatory quotas, or that compliance was prompted by a desire to do the right thing, based on ideals of gender equality. Without disregarding these factors, other aspects were, in our view, more important.

FNAC viewed action to improve the gender balance as a means of modernising the image of FNAC and its members. These were not old-fashioned enterprises per se, but the agricultural sector is often associated with traditional values.

In addition, FNAC operates according to strong democratic norms. In the years before it introduced voluntary quotas, the number of women in the organisation had increased. This change prepared the ground for FNAC to frame the introduction of quotas as a means of legitimising its decision-making, rather than as an issue of gender inequality. In other words, FNAC introduced gender quotas without emphasising this as a ‘women’s cause’.

Politicians similarly cited democratic inclusion as a reason for intervention. The corporate sector contended, however, that shareholder democracy would be compromised, arguing principally that unqualified women would be elevated and competent men thrown out.

In a bid to enlist the support of the corporate sector, the line of argument shifted, from focusing on democracy and gender equality to emphasising how a better gender balance could enhance a business’s interests, make better use of human resources and maximise profits.

This, though, was not enough to convince companies to take up gender quotas voluntarily.

In the seven years since mandatory quotas were introduced, many of the initial sceptics have changed their positions. It is a challenge to measure the effects of quotas on economic results, but it is clear that the fear that quotas would promote incompetent women has proved unfounded.

In addition, our research indicates that the increase in the share of women on boards has coincided with an increase in transparency and a professionalisation of decision-making. In parallel with the development of less homogenus boards, a new culture of decision-making has emerged in which there is less acceptance of alliances and decisions being made behind the scenes. This fracturing of old networks has also opened the way for men who were previously excluded from boards.

Norway’s experience suggests that it is not enough to threaten the introduction of mandatory quotas. The companies that voluntarily introduced gender quotas were only those – such as FNAC members – that saw them as a useful means to achieve other organisational goals. It cannot be assumed that the majority of enterprises are in similar situations. To make progress, mandatory gender quotas are therefore necessary. Once quotas are introduced, companies often find that quotas can be used to trigger changes that they had been looking to achieve.

Hilde Bjørkhaug is a senior researcher at the Centre for Rural Research in Trondheim, Norway. Siri Øyslebø Sørensen is a doctoral student at the Norwegian University for Science and Technology in Trondheim. They are the authors of a 2012 study, the “Feminism without gender? Arguments for gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway”.